Paul Campos has a definition of law schools that are "trap law schools.". The criteria are:1 very expensive. 2. Desirable location. 3. Superficially attractive employment and salary statistics. (the trap concept gas to do with a sports metaphor that I don't understand or care about- something about a game being harder to win than it seems on the surface just comparing two teams.)

Trap schools are schools that look good enough on the surface that reasonably prudent students will attend at sticker- but end up in financial disaster anyway.

He nominates-USC Fordham and George Washington as examples of this trap. Some commentators think Minnesota might also be included.

Thoughts? If you are thinking about attending one of these schools would you pay sticker?

1. Well this is true of pretty much every law school except a handful of state schools. However, if you have a large scholarship then schools such as USC/Fordham/GW aren't so bad.2. People want to live in desirable locations? Shocker.3. Similar to 1, every school has this since they all produce misleading stats.

This seems like a stupid term considering outside of #2, almost every law school falls into this category. Which I guess leads to the obvious conclusion that law schools in general are traps. Fucking news to me.

I was curious about what people here think. From reading the threads, there are a number of people who consider going to these schools at sticker. These applicants seem to think going to these schools is a good idea. So I was interested in their response.

Wouldn't schools like Cardozo and American make more sense than GW/Fordham? Cardozo and AU are both fairly highly ranked, they both cost just as much as GW/Fordham, and their employment outlooks are much bleaker.

superbloom wrote:Wouldn't schools like Cardozo and American make more sense than GW/Fordham? Cardozo and AU are both fairly highly ranked, they both cost just as much as GW/Fordham, and their employment outlooks are much bleaker.

Agreed, everyone is blasting these T20 schools for being "traps" but I really think that what OP's guide is referring to are places like:

USC, Fordham, and GW are legitimate schools that pour a lot of people into BigLaw and in general are good schools; not the holy T14, but good schools. Schools that I think are traps are these private 3rd and 4th tier schools that charge as much as a T14 and give you no chance of ever getting a job or paying back those loans. I mean, Fordham (at least according to TLS's page) has an 86% employment rate at graduation, UDC doesn't even have that 9 months out. So, I don't think "trap" is the right word, per se, for GW/USC/Fordham. They may be worse than the T14, but in the grand scheme of law schools, there's a lot worse that can be done.

If by "UDC" you mean U of DC, I would probably not leave it on the list. The school is dirt cheap (~$9,000) and doesn't market itself as anything other than ether (1) a place to go if you intend to work at the local level (city) in non-prestigious positions or (2) you don't get into anywhere else but really want to be lawyer.

superbloom wrote:Wouldn't schools like Cardozo and American make more sense than GW/Fordham? Cardozo and AU are both fairly highly ranked, they both cost just as much as GW/Fordham, and their employment outlooks are much bleaker.

Agreed, everyone is blasting these T20 schools for being "traps" but I really think that what OP's guide is referring to are places like:

USC, Fordham, and GW are legitimate schools that pour a lot of people into BigLaw and in general are good schools; not the holy T14, but good schools. Schools that I think are traps are these private 3rd and 4th tier schools that charge as much as a T14 and give you no chance of ever getting a job or paying back those loans. I mean, Fordham (at least according to TLS's page) has an 86% employment rate at graduation, UDC doesn't even have that 9 months out. So, I don't think "trap" is the right word, per se, for GW/USC/Fordham. They may be worse than the T14, but in the grand scheme of law schools, there's a lot worse that can be done.

OP refers to reasonably prudent students...I don't think there are any reasonably prudent people paying sticker at any of those schools

sunynp i read the same blog post after you directed me how to find his blog. i actually think what he wrote has merit. i think the best way to objectively measure it would be to control for employment prospects, and find which schools receive more applications.

There should be a correlation between employment prospects and applications; as employment prospects decline, so should the number of applications.

The trap schools would be the outliers, where applications are disproportionately higher than they should be, because the school's lay prestige is not reflective of how crappy the employment prospects are.

Aberzombie1892 wrote:If by "UDC" you mean U of DC, I would probably not leave it on the list. The school is dirt cheap (~$9,000) and doesn't market itself as anything other than ether (1) a place to go if you intend to work at the local level (city) in non-prestigious positions or (2) you don't get into anywhere else but really want to be lawyer.

I was unaware of that, thanks.

srfngdd6 wrote:OP refers to reasonably prudent students...I don't think there are any reasonably prudent people paying sticker at any of those schools

Yeah, but in that case, I don't feel like "trap" is exactly the right word. They're merely schools that aren't as good as some of the competition in the market. I mean, GW sends a ton of people into BigLaw (granted it a big class) and same with Fordham; USC (coupled with UCLA) kinda owns the LA market. It seems like they give a good platform to some people, but aren't necessarily a sure-fire big law job. They serve their purpose and beat out tons of other places in terms of placement; just don't think "trap" should be used to refer to them.

Yeah, y'all are confused about what campos meant by "trap." Schools in the T20 range are a trap precisely because it is possible to obtain an excellent outcome by attending, but 70% of the class won't. Plus, they enjoy the reputation of being good, sub-elite schools.

As previous poster said, no one prudent is going to be "trapped" at golden gate. You're either ignorant or making a consciously bad choice if you go there.

OP, the "trap law schools" that Mr. Campos is referring to would certainly include all of the schools ranked highly but not in the T13. That's not to say that they are not great, but they generally attract a lot of students that are willing to pay a COA of $190K+ to attend them (Texas, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, George Washington, BU, BC, Notre Dame, WashU, UCLA, USC). I realize that Notre Dame, WashU, and Vanderbilt are not necessarily in desirable locations - but - that doesn't make them any less desirable to 0L's. Outside of those schools, students generally know better and have realistic expectations.

If you omitted the T14 (and maybe Texas and Vanderbilt) and looked at the rest of the T50 and compared the median overall salary across the rest of the T50, the median overall salaries would likely be fairly similar. True, salaries in higher cost of living areas like Los Angeles, Boston, or NYC would be higher, but that increased salary would not be a reflection on the strength of the schools so much as it would be an indicator of the higher cost of living to live in those cities. This median salary would be around $40,000-$75,000 depending on the COL of the cities that the particular law school places students into.